Share This:

I Am Not Like The Others by Ralph Steadman

Recently, I watched a documentary of Ralph Steadman. He’s an infamous cartoonist whose work graced the covers and pages of Hunter S. Thompson’s rowdy reads. Steadman has a natural ability to start with a splash of paint and envision the result. Sometimes what starts as a mean dragon, turns into a wicked politician. It’s a beautiful form of art.

The other day I set out to write a brief update on how much biking is saving me. But something larger was calling. What I realized in crafting my next article was that biking was part of a grander picture. This article is about life, partitioned; perhaps more catchily titled, “The Partitioned Life.”

The specialized workforce we never wanted

The separated, divided, specialized life is largely due to our strict capitalistic culture. Adam Smith, writer of Wealth of Nations and oft-cited theorist about the “invisible hand” of markets, suggested that capitalism would succeed via economic specialization. Essentially, with professional expertise emphasized, we could separate the economy into different vocations. These vocations would enable society to produce at faster rates, because time would simply be spent on one’s expert area.

Lawyers, doctors, and teachers all take distinctly different directions to accomplish their career goals. Most go to graduate school and receive mind-numbing didactic training. But each is partitioned and specialized.

The days of da Vinci are gone. Leonardo da Vinci was a polymath — a man with various skills. This painter, sculptor, philosopher, and anatomist was responsible for early explanation of medicine, astronomy, art, and more. Without his versatile background, each would suffer. He was the antithesis of singular specialization. But our economic interests have destroyed this path. The generalist is less valued compared to the highly-specialized “expert.”

We are partitioned beyond our wages

With disparate workforces, specialized employees are needed for a variety of tasks. Now we need a secretary, assistant, web designer, etc. But each of those three jobs could be accomplished by one person. This is the conundrum and false growth that’s associated with Adam Smith’s legacy. The more specialization associated with our jobs, the more employees that are needed for administrative needs.

Now, we need to partition even further. Picture your local city. What do you see? I see a series of shops, restaurants, bars, research parks, industry, fast food, and gyms. Break it down even further, and I see the burger flipper, salt and pepper shaker, and checkout representative. I see management, accountants, lawyers, bosses on bosses on bosses. We are operating within this highly specialized economy that works beyond vocational structure — it fundamentally affects how we shop.

The following is highly dependent upon your age, demographic, socioeconomic status, and personal interests, but the partitioned life also affects your monthly costs. Last time I flew into New York City, I asked a Millennial what she recommended I do in the city. She talked to me about the bars, restaurants, and museums. Then, she asked if I liked exercise. I do! She suggested Soulcycle.

When I landed, I Googled the name and found the chain was all over the city. Soulcycle has developed a sort of cult following. It intrigued me until I saw the price: $39 for one class. I’m always ballin’ on a budget, and $39 for a bike class was senseless. Needless to say, I didn’t go.

That price, class, and exercise studio impacted me. Here we have an economy so separated and partitioned that people decide to work all day, go home, and then go to a workout class. This Kubrickian hallway seems to be an endless procession of work on work — working to work out.

Crush the divides for creativity, clarity, and savings

Buying and riding a bike 90% of the time has changed my relationship with our economy. Every day I choose my bike, I feel a minor pang of anarchy. I’m doing my own thing to contribute to the collective — not contributing to climate change, capitalistic malignancies, and health problems that are affecting us all.

As mentioned, I started this article with the desire to focus on a number — the true savings associated with riding a bike. Instead, I’ve decided to talk about the bigger economic effect of our partitioned lives. But let me briefly entertain some calculations. With a bike, I pay for my gym membership ($0) and fuel up with food ($0 in gasoline). If you were to analyze your car-less savings, you’d need to immediately start with a couple hundred dollars every month.

Over the last 30 days, I’ve biked about 200 miles. There have been no parking fees, maintenance costs, or police to worry about. If I drove those 200 miles, AAA estimates that that would cost me $156.60 per month. But the savings goes beyond this and works to break the traditional partitions that our economy has parcelled off for us.

Recognizing and appreciating the generalist in all of us

We currently live in one of the most unequal times in American history. We have followed the wizened advice of economic thinkers like Adam Smith, and it’s led us astray. The “invisible hand” and free market principles have led to broken roads, broken budgets, and broken families. We are a country of financial elite and impoverished masses.

Economic specialization is no longer working. We must recognize the generalist is more powerful. Knowing how to repair a bike, being fit, planting your own garden, collectivising, and democratizing are our last hope. It’s our world’s last hope.

We must create an economy and emphasize the power of the generalist. We deserve to give ourselves the opportunity to be radicalized and empowered by the next da Vinci, don’t we?

Share This:

The World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) announced that the world lost 50% of species in the last 40 years. Directors at the WWF credit this to human consumption. For climatologists and scientists, there’s a bleakness to the future — one that includes starvation, exoduses from low-lying areas, droughts, and wild weather year round. It’s clear that we need to reduce our fossil fuel usage, but how we do that is still a complicated endeavor.

The flawed governmental approach

Going green is often framed as a decision to buy “certified organic” foods, choose energy-efficient technologies, and chuck your empty plastic bottle into a blue recycling bin. While these conscious choices are more environmentally friendly and better, they seem to ignore the very real consequences of our consumption. To illustrate this point, the U.S. government suggests, “switching all the light bulbs in a home from conventional incandescent light bulbs to compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs…” Going green is seen as an additional item; without the latest energy efficiencies, you’re not green.

Photo: Mike Mozart/Flickr

As the government site shows, they exclaim the ills of conventional bulbs and recommend purchasing CFLs. Unfortunately, that mass waste and consumption of a new product goes unnoticed and unaccounted for. By immediately trashing all your old bulbs for the latest and greatest green tech, you’re simply ignoring the true life of a product and upgrading before it’s necessary.

The U.S. government should be encouraging people to take full advantage of the natural lives of products; instead, we hear how we should switch every bulb in our home. They are training you to have a faster turnover and consumption rate. Eventually, they’ll be recommending you switch all the CFLs with LED lights, which last longer and take even less energy. This technology is definitely better for the environment, but each transition creates massive amounts of waste, and the new products require marketing, packaging, shipping, storage, warehousing, and a consumer that will likely drive (consuming fossil fuels) to purchase the new bulbs.

Big green is big business

For the federal government, going green cannot mean consuming less. Pro-business entities and lobbying groups would launch a massive critique and attack if that was stated. Our economy is not equipped for people to stop buying. This capitalistic system is predicated on infinite growth; a pyramid scheme that will end at some point, but whose leaders hesitate to bring its early demise. Unfortunately, the government can’t properly advise its citizenry regarding climate change prevention.

At some point, going green was co-opted by “big green” — the big business approach to energy efficiency. Big green needs you to keep spending, too. With this aim in mind, they’ve warped the dialogue into a justification to purchase more. The irony is that by buying more — in order to be efficient — we’re digging ourselves into a deeper hole.

Just look at the first sentence from this Huffington Post article: “Saving energy and water can be difficult, but now there are plenty of gadgets on the market that aim to make the process easier for you.” This comes from the “Huff Post Green” section! Articles like these (which are everywhere) advocate buying more gadgets and technology, and are only contributing to this horrible, repetitive consumption.

Even at my alma mater, Colorado State University, the institution had a habit of touting its green initiatives. All the brochures advertised the push to use renewable energy and active involvement in recycling. These are commendable efforts, but there’s a hypocrisy to it all. Throughout my years there, they were always building — I never knew the campus without yellow construction taped areas, sounds of construction, and digital photo representations on the buildings to come. All that development adds tons of pollution to the air and creates epic proportions of waste. Cranes, bulldozers, and industrial materials would all be necessary to complete the buildings. The carbon costs for these components often goes uncalculated and unnoticed.

Then there’s the story of the Toyota Prius. In 1997, the company released this awfully designed hybrid monster. Getting around 50 miles per gallon (MPG), the Prius became a popular vehicle with a clear message: “I care about the environment.” When considering the technology and energy that’s required to make it, it’s scary. The battery cells, which recharge when braking and coasting, harness energy that would otherwise be lost. But they are an environmental nightmare and difficult to dispose of properly. Moreover, the Prius gets about the same gas mileage as Honda Civics from the late 80s and early 90s. The Honda Civic Hatchback from 1992 got about 48 MPG; no hybrid battery cells needed, and for a fraction of the cost on your wallet and the environment!

Finding a real solution

We’ve been duped into believing the solution to climate change is another purchase. In reality, the better answer would be to say, “Stop where you are, turn off lights, protest for change, and don’t buy anything for a year!”

Photo: Alosh Bennett/Flickr

Most moderate voices understand that we cannot become Luddites to combat carbon emissions. The world has become increasingly connected and globalized — it’s hard to imagine regressing whatsoever. Technological development is only ratcheting up, and people are embracing the progress fervently. But our course is not sustainable.

We need to consider movements to buy local crops and goods, collective markets and organizations, and ignoring the message to buy more to save. Going green doesn’t have to hurt your budget. It should be about consuming less and supporting sustainable development. What could be better for your budget?

Share This:

The Tax Foundation just released new research that shows how much $100 is worth in each state. When accounting for living expenses, purchasing power, and taxes, the organization found that your money’s value varies greatly from state to state. In fact, if you have that money in Mississippi, it’s equal to about $115.74, when compared to the national average. Or, if you live in D.C., that only equals $84.60!

Share This:

In September, 2011, New York City’s Zuccotti Park was flooded with tents and protesters. Sparked from an Adbusters article, the Occupy Wall Street protests began. The movement championed a variety of ideals that included wealth equality, removing money from politics, and reducing corporate influence in our political system. Diverse groups flocked to the streets to argue for a better future; potentially, one without massive corruption and greed. But the idyllic dreams faded as the campers were kicked out of the park and cities used police powers to destroy the collected masses across the country.

If you’re here, you’re probably part of the 99%

If you’ve ventured onto Frugaling.org, you’re likely interested in saving money and becoming more frugal. Moreover, you’re probably a proud member of the 99%… of incomes. The Occupy Wall Street movement embodied a siren call that said, “We are the 99%.” They owned their place in society and called for greater income equality.

The anger and resentment are building, as people think about the exorbitant bonuses that Wall Street marketmakers are taking home. Most of the recovery in Obama’s economy are limited to the richest/highest earning populations. In fact, the income inequality is reaching record proportions.

In 2012, the top 10 percent of earners took home more than half of the country’s total income.

…The 1 percent has captured about 95 percent of the income gains since the recession ended. (NYT)

The New York Times’ Op-Ed Columnist, Paul Krugman, says it best:

In practice, inherited wealth and connections matter enormously; those not born into the upper tier are, and know themselves to be, at a huge disadvantage. (NYT)

In India, they’ve long had a caste system that stratifies the demographic groups. You are frequently born into a group and the income pressure force you to stay planted in this domain. What Krugman is alluding to is a caste system in the frame of India’s horrific class structure that limits income mobility and opportunities in life – right here in America.

The consequences of mass income inequality

Poverty and income inequality both distract and debilitate people from being able to think critically. The tragic irony is that financial decisions, debt, savings, and everything that Frugaling stands for may be unattainable in this environment. Basically, there’s an unmet basic need in those suffering from poverty.

Photo: Wikipedia

In 1943, a psychology professor and researcher introduced a basic hierarchy, construct for understanding how everyone has basic needs. This pyramid included Physiological, Safety, Love/Belonging, Esteem, and Self-Actualization. An individual would be working up to a self-actualized state, but certain needs must be met first. This is called Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

Poverty and income inequality test the limits for critical thinking because people are fundamentally fighting for more basic needs such as Safety. Without a universal, socialized, single-payer health care option, those most in need are forced to find basic health needs before thinking critically about a budget. When resources, property, employment, and/or health are questioned, the more advanced needs are pushed back. These requirements are particularly important when the most vulnerable populations are fighting to survive – much less to to protest, share, and become active members of societal decisions.

Protesting defamation and destruction in the impoverished

I want to take you through a little real-life experience. As a graduate student at a solid state school, I’m quite privileged with my opportunities and future employment. But graduate students like me are often short on time and money. Many are raising families at the same time. The lifestyle can be brutal.

Over the last decade, my home university has been proposing a reconstruction project and new buildings to university-owned apartments. Year after year passed without resolution, and the older buildings aged terribly. Something needed to happen, as the most vulnerable school populations were living in evermore dilapidated housing.

Colloquially, these were referred to as a project and ghetto. The most diverse students and families occupied these buildings. Housing was exceptionally affordable – cheapest in the city – with many basics covered (e.g., water, cable, internet). Despite the horrid, storied exteriors, these were an exceptional choice for those studying at the highest level of academia and the smallest wallets.

Then a resolution quickly swept over the university apartment system. New buildings and contractors were being brought in to discuss all the financial complexities. At the end of this dialogue, the university decided to do something morally aberrant. Instead of keeping the university-owned land and property, they decided to lease the land to a private property management company. Now, this property company would finally revitalize the campus housing, but the consequences to the most in need would be terrible – a trade-off that was easily overlooked by school administrators and a company that stood to benefit from serious rent increases.

As the private company builds their own property on the campus, I’ve spoken to many vulnerable student populations. My frequent question is: Will you be staying? The answer is often “no,” because they can’t afford the nearly 100% increase in rent. They’ll be forced to move out of their apartments and a diaspora of diverse students will look elsewhere in the city. Families of four, recent immigrants, those on student visas, and many other groups are now being pushed out of their homes – forced to pay up or get out.

Something seemed evil about the process, and I began to ask people if there were ever protests on campus. Nobody ever heard, was aware, or participated in any. Because these students were in a rough financial spot and short on time, gathering a mass of protesters was a near impossibility. It never came to fruition. And now, the huddled masses must move on.

Should we defend the rich because they pay the most taxes?

The rich are definitely getting richer – this is an economic fact. But more importantly, the rich are collecting most of the income growth, too. A growing debate is being waged between world leaders regarding income inequality. Surprising participants are chiming in for a powerful, heated argument.

A couple of the top mayors have chimed in to support the wealthiest populations – even going so far to argue that we should thank rich people. The former mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, has stated that the rich are a blessing for the city of New York. Because millionaires and billionaires pay lots of tax revenue back to the city and state, Bloomberg believes that we should honor and respect their riches. Over his tenure, he hesitated and prevented income tax increases on the wealthiest populations. Former Mayor Bloomberg even suggested that the wealthy may leave in droves if taxation increases, but this hasn’t been proven. Moreover, the current Mayor, Bill DeBlasio, has refuted this claim:

Bloomberg isn’t alone in his defense of the rich. Mayor Boris Johnson of London, England also wrote about the need to thank the rich for their support of the city’s economy. These “tax heroes” (the 0.1%) pay for about 14.1% of tax revenue for the city. The mayor suggests that this is a positive thing and speaks to the contribution that the rich have on the economy. The oligarchic mayor even proposed giving knighthoods to the largest tax payers:

In fact, we should stop publishing rich lists in favour of an annual list of the top 100 Tax Heroes, with automatic knighthoods for the top 10. (The Telegraph)

After reading these two mayors defend the rich, you’d think the wealthy lifestyle was under attack – a war was being waged. But frankly, the lobbying power of the rich has stifled accurate, fair debate. And the masses – the 99% – are mostly silent again.

Thankfully, a growing number of leaders are speaking out about this economic problem that is sure to doom the masses without serious changes. Pope Francis has been an outspoken critic of trickle-down economics and supported reforms to the current capitalistic culture.

How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?

Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion… has never been confirmed by the facts.

While the Catholic church has often held that the impoverished are the most needed groups for their mission work, the analysis and critique of powerful, governmental economic systems has been overlooked. Pope Francis is bringing a sweeping message of hope to those who’ve suffered amidst these deleterious economic practices.

The President of Uruguay, José Mujica, has also been a firm supporter of those most in need financially.

Quoting the Roman court-philosopher Seneca, Mr. Mujica said, “It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, who is poor.”

Mujica also upset some in Uruguay’s political establishment by selling off a presidential residence in a seaside resort city, calling the property “useless.”

His donations leave him with roughly $800 a month of his salary. He said he and his wife, Lucía Topolansky, a former guerrilla who was also imprisoned and is now a senator, do not need much to live on.

INDEED, if there is any country in South America where a president can drive a Beetle and get by without a large entourage of bodyguards, it might be Uruguay, which consistently ranks among the region’s least corrupt and least unequal nations. (NYT)

President Mujica is shirking the glam and pomp of the presidency’s opulence. Taking home around $800 a month is a ridiculous sum for a president, but the consequences have been incredibly positive. Uruguay is one of the most progressive nations in the region and widely considered to be the least corrupt. By shedding the affluent lifestyle of his predecessors, he has stripped the hierarchy and social class that may remove him from his people. He is a role model and advocate for moderation among a cultural malaise that argues for more and more growth.

When you’re too poor to protest a culture collapses

The biggest threat to our long-term economy is income inequality and social stratification. Without some sort of correction, we will be doomed to relive the mistakes that aristocracy found in generations prior to this. It’s scary to think that I may ever be too poor to protest the conditions and treatment I receive, but the risk is growing. The richest are getting even richer than the rest – the power, influence, and control of government is terrifying.

What control do we, the 99%, have when politicians can be lobbied and motivated to support the wealthiest? Who will protect the most needy?